@Leebo I remember you that Anki takes down all shared decks which are copyright infractions (when the owner reports it), when you register in the ankiweb you also agree with the terms of the service not to break the law etc.
So stop proclaiming the fallacy that anki makes somehow money from them or that it promotes its content for more sales. Anki in addition is a one time payment not a subscription, and it is largely used also in careers such as medicine and psychology, not just by weeabos.
Can you point to it? Because if you say RTK I could agree but with WK I never seen any. And still the RTK author gave its consentient for the usage with decks and online communities because it helped him to promote its book.
I don’t think the one-time payment, or diversity has any impact on the argument.
If they take down the content, then I’ll stop comparing it to the Bunpro situation. Still, it’s not like Bunpro is claiming to own the content they linked to, it’s just further reading, and they’re not hosting it. I don’t think I’ve ever clicked on one of those, I just used Bunpro to review things I knew.
It does: it charges for the application not the contents which you, as user, put it.
The ankiweb warns and asserts not to upload copyrighted or not owned material,
It has happened already several times, also with the iKnow ones which included part of the licensed material (only after the company requested it). Also famous decks like the kanji odysee ones.
I think that’s totally fair form the bunpro side. What’s not fair is to build up their contents based on materials from others, and free contributions for a later profit, these contributions have not been remunerated without the prior contentment of all parts. That’s illegal in Europe, and legal in US.
In fact if I would have contributed to the page, and I could prove that my sentences are literally copied there for a profit without my previous authorisation or without me having renounced to my authory over the materials I could sue them.
Then Wanikani company should send a notification of DMCA request to the owner of the page and they have some time to react to this request and put things down.
In that regard there is not much that users like us can say, companies should deal with other companies about how they handle their intellectual property.
Nope, you’re missing the whole point. Free version gives you access to all the links that other people have made + organisation of grammar points. If you want to go in, make your own example sentences, use your own SRS, go ahead spend all that extra time. You don’t want to spend that extra time? Boom. $5 and you’re ready to go.
If you just give out the SRS for free what’d be the point of paying for bunpro?
The main reason to pay for bunpro would be its SRS, since that’s the main thing they bring to the table. But I don’t really agree with the SRS being the whole point of bunpro. Bunpro’s main purpose in my opinion is serving as a way to find and learn grammar. Can you learn grammar with just the readings and their organization? Yes, but you’ll have to put in extra work.
Besides, limiting to one example sentence and then including SRS would be borderline ridiculous. Why? Because you’d just end up memorizing the single sentence (keep in mind bunpro switches sentence each time), not learn grammar. The one example sentence has the purpose of saying “this could be us but you…”. It’s supposed to be enticing not free. How many do you think have that extra time to spend compiling example sentences into an srs? Far from everyone, between working a full time job and other duties. So what do they do? $5/month. Simple.
Here’s an “extended” model I considered:
Free N5 with SRS (thus it includes example sentences; problem: there should be more people learning N5 grammar than any other group as such potentially lowering their profits
Please note that they already stated that some lessons would be available for free. I’m assuming this still holds true were they to adopt something similar to my suggestion. Then people would naturally be able to try out bunpro and its SRS to see that it is indeed worth paying for.
Videos are a much larger part of what Youtube offers than what SRS is of what Bunpro offers. Videos would in my humble opinion rather be equal to lessons themselves. Since a video gives you information - just like a lesson - and an SRS checks if you remember information.
Sorry if it seems like I’m targeting you specifically (since I technically am I suppose) but I just wanted to explain my reasoning. I was just intrigued by your argument.
I can’t share the deck since it’s all Bunpro’s content. I just designed the Anki cards. In case the Bunpro owners say that they don’t have a problem with an Anki deck based on their content I’ll upload it as a shared deck.
I honestly really like your idea! Loads of paid services give little previews and tastes of what their product is like, and offering at least /some/ N5 (I wouldn’t say all, since as you said and as we all know, N5 would be their most popular) SRS could be perfect. Kind of like how WK gives people the first three levels here.
There has been a lot of feedback on the content that we provide and there are some things we would like to clear up.
All of our sentences are either written by us and checked by a Japanese native or written entirely by Japanese natives themselves. We write our sentences in a way that builds upon previously studied grammar, so as you progress through each subsequent level on Bunpro you get more and more exposure to the grammar points that you have learned. We have not taken any sentences from other sites or resources. The fact that two sentences that use the exact same JLPT grammar point and the exact same JLPT vocabulary level parameters would resemble each other isn’t surprising. That is the nature of language and language learning. Odds are that you are going to come across similar sentences no matter what resource you choose to use.
Our content is the SRS system and our examples sentences. We have put the majority of our time and effort into an SRS system that utilizes original sentences that build upon previously studied material. You wouldn’t argue that the reference page numbers we list for Genki and other textbooks qualify as our content. If someone wants more information about a grammar point, they could easily flip open their textbook and search in the index for a page number, just like they could open a tab and search for an online resource. The outside resources and textbook page numbers listed for each grammar point are there to help point you toward resources that you may find helpful. There is no fundamental or legal difference between linking to a site that has more information about a grammar point and listing a page number in a textbook. We hope that by providing links to other sites we can give those sites a wider audience and the traffic they deserve. That being said, we have been in contact with outside resource content creators in the past and it is something we will continue to do moving forward.
@KeeperofMee As @conan said, we really like your ideas! Thank you very much for your suggestions. We feel that what you have said will greatly influence how we move forward with Bunpro. Cheers!
This discussion has been really interesting to me, because I’m honestly surprised by the negativity toward the linking. It sounds like they were taken aback by this as well. If Bunpro were copying/pasting material from other websites onto their own, or embedding it in such a way that prevented users from having to visit the other sites, that would be a more obvious violation to me. But if anything, the linking model seems beneficial to the other sites, because as they said they’re actually sending increased traffic to them. Maybe the linked sites are old news for some of the folks who’ve been studying grammar longer than I have, but there were several that I wasn’t previously aware of before using Bunpro. I’m sure that’s true for others as well.
Personally, If I ran a Japanese learning website, I would love to have a site like Bunpro linking to me, even if those links were behind a paywall. If anything, I think the paywall actually increases the benefit, because not only would they be sending users my way, but they’d be sending me users who have already demonstrated that they’re willing to pay for Japanese learning materials! You couldn’t ask for better traffic.
Of course, that’s just my opinion, and others can reasonably disagree. Legal issues aside, I think the best course of action would be to just get permission from each individual website. I bet many would be completely fine with and even welcome the linking. And in cases where content owners do have a problem with it, you could just avoid linking to those sites. A policy of “we only link to content with permission” seems much less likely to cause disagreement among users and content owners in the long run than “we don’t legally need permission to link” (even if the latter is technically true).
This is awesome and a real valuable point for your page. You should advertise more this i+1 learning way and how you are teaching grammar upon previous learnt elements.
I believe the web still feels incomplete to be the replacement of an actual textbook, but I am sure that you are not far from becoming a future referent for the next generation of japanese learning apps.
Why not include a mode to learn on rails, sort of “construct the next sentence based on this grammar point?” at the end of a chapter or session the user might have written a short story only by using all the grammar points in the chapter. That can be challenging to build, however there is no equivalent of a 作文 in the SRS world.
@pushindawood I still would like a way to externalize the SRS part, because I already have more than 6 different apps/pages of SRS and lock-in policies. What if you provide a watermarked anki decks or another way to export the learnt lessons to own’s user SRS app?
Those things are very easy and fun to implement; you already did the hard part, the content and the user base.
I think Bunpro is great. I’ve found it to be really useful and have enjoyed using it.
Sadly, though, I won’t be subscribing. Not due to some objection to your wonderful site, but simply because I don’t like spending money! Especially on the Internet.
But of all the sites out there I could spend my money on, after WK, Bunpro would be first on the list.
Keep doing what you’re doing guys!
I think there is a difference. As soon as you start charging people, you’re a business. As a grammar resource I think Bunpro is lacking too much right now. An SRS, a few English meanings per grammar point and some example sentences are helpful to people brushing up on grammar they already know, but for me and probably many other people to understand grammar, a more in-depth explanation is important content, which you don’t provide. Relying off-site to other people’s content to make up for what you lack you is unethical and locking it behind your pay wall means you are indeed profiting from someone else’s content.
As for the bit you mentioned about textbook page numbers, as an additional bit of info, a footnote etc it’s completely different, it isn’t used to replace content but be applied as additional reference for users to research on their own. The people who it’s useful to have paid for the book. It’s meaningless to those without it and you aren’t profiting or giving away any content from it.
I just want to let you know that, in my opinion, there is a difference between providing places for people to find further information and using other people’s content when you should be providing your own.
I mean…you can. If you teach it in a specific way, type/write up your own explanations and sentences, that’s copyrightable. Grammar in general can’t be copyrighted, but teaching methods can.
Think of it like republishing public domain novels. The public domain versions are public domain, but your alterations, new cover, any new explanations in the book, or other new material, make that version now copyrighted.
Though this specific case with Bunpro is a bit different, since they’re not hosting the content themselves, it’s a bit of a grey area as to the legalities. I’m not a lawyer, so I have no idea if this would qualify as an actual legal problem or just be a moral one.
Copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something. You may express your ideas in writing or drawings and claim copyright in your description, but be aware that copyright will not protect the idea itself as revealed in your written or artistic work.
Neither can sentences be copyrighted. You can copyright writings/novels but not random sentences.
Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases. In some cases, these things may be protected as trademarks.
I don’t really understand the matter of this discussion. I haven’t used BunPro that much in the past, but as I see it, they are referencing third party content as a bonus for users, in case they need even more learning material in order to learn a certain grammar point. Those links are not necessarily needed though, you can learn the grammar without them.
If referencing something was a copyright infringement… well, let’s sue Google.
Perhaps I worded it badly, but yes, these items as individual can’t, but together they can. That’s why you can’t just go around uploading the Genki books for free consumption. Sections, debateably, but otherwise, it’s protected. We’re in agreement here
I mostly agree with you, but you have to be careful not to base your argument solely upon US IP law. Other countries may have different rules, and there’s no guarantee that the sources referenced by BunPro fall under US jurisdiction.
BunPro is only linking and referencing, so I think they are quite safe.
The problem with Bunpro is that those links actually are necessary. Bunpro doesn’t really teach grammar. It simply provides example sentences and an SRS.
Legal issues aside, I think the best course of action would be to just get permission from each individual website. I bet many would be completely fine with and even welcome the linking. And in cases where content owners do have a problem with it, you could just avoid linking to those sites. A policy of “we only link to content with permission” seems much less likely to cause disagreement among users and content owners in the long run than “we don’t legally need permission to link” (even if the latter is technically true).
